Symthic Forum was shut down on January 11th, 2019. You're viewing an archive of this page from 2019-01-08 at 22:27. Thank you all for your support! Please get in touch via the Curse help desk if you need any support using this archive.

Thats probably just a preference thing but usually Operations is very poorly balanced for the attackers. Ifs ADS and movement speed is lower than attacking might be even harder. Not entirely sure if lowering TTK would make attacking harder or easier.

Hmm, I only played the Singleplayer and MW II for an hour in MP. Back then I never found any real difference between the gunplay of BF and CoD, especially BF3. Within the usual engagement distances the differences in the more nuanced shooting mechanics of BF do not really come to play.

As far as moving mechanics go, all these special moves in BF3 and 4, I would definitely call exploits, they were surely not intended and were rarely encountered in average gameplay anyway. It is a bit different in BF1 where I did see more crouch-slides, and the movement in general is somewhat clunkier in some ways and very reactive in others. I think BF4 had it spot on in the end.

Altogether and just judging from looking at CoD gameplay I would not say they feel alike. But things like map design and gamemode play a part as well. Engagement distances are tendencially more focused around the 5-50m range in CoD, while in BF1 the maps are focused more around 0-10 and 50-150m.

Personally I did like the run and gun gameplay of BF3 and 4, where you could play aggressive, push forward flank around fast while also being able to defend a lane and position. I think CoD did work in a similar way when you put the engagement in perspective.

Hmm, I only played the Singleplayer and MW II for an hour in MP. Back then I never found any real difference between the gunplay of BF and CoD, especially BF3. Within the usual engagement distances the differences in the more nuanced shooting mechanics of BF do not really come to play.

As far as moving mechanics go, all these special moves in BF3 and 4, I would definitely call exploits, they were surely not intended and were rarely encountered in average gameplay anyway. It is a bit different in BF1 where I did see more crouch-slides, and the movement in general is somewhat clunkier in some ways and very reactive in others. I think BF4 had it spot on in the end.

Altogether and just judging from looking at CoD gameplay I would not say they feel alike. But things like map design and gamemode play a part as well. Engagement distances are tendencially more focused around the 5-50m range in CoD, while in BF1 the maps are focused more around 0-10 and 50-150m.

Personally I did like the run and gun gameplay of BF3 and 4, where you could play aggressive, push forward flank around fast while also being able to defend a lane and position. I think CoD did work in a similar way when you put the engagement in perspective.

The engagement distance leading to a kill drops off nearly exponentially with range in BF1 and BF4. 50-150 is irrelevant compared to 10-20, 20-30, etc

I was pretty shocked when Labby posted his engagement range analysis, because the data was very similar for BF1 compared to BF4, and my impression was that BF1 was a much closer range game.

Hmm, I only played the Singleplayer and MW II for an hour in MP. Back then I never found any real difference between the gunplay of BF and CoD, especially BF3. Within the usual engagement distances the differences in the more nuanced shooting mechanics of BF do not really come to play.

As far as moving mechanics go, all these special moves in BF3 and 4, I would definitely call exploits, they were surely not intended and were rarely encountered in average gameplay anyway. It is a bit different in BF1 where I did see more crouch-slides, and the movement in general is somewhat clunkier in some ways and very reactive in others. I think BF4 had it spot on in the end.

Altogether and just judging from looking at CoD gameplay I would not say they feel alike. But things like map design and gamemode play a part as well. Engagement distances are tendencially more focused around the 5-50m range in CoD, while in BF1 the maps are focused more around 0-10 and 50-150m.

Personally I did like the run and gun gameplay of BF3 and 4, where you could play aggressive, push forward flank around fast while also being able to defend a lane and position. I think CoD did work in a similar way when you put the engagement in perspective.

The engagement distance leading to a kill drops off nearly exponentially with range in BF1 and BF4. 50-150 is irrelevant compared to 10-20, 20-30, etc

I was pretty shocked when Labby posted his engagement range analysis, because the data was very similar for BF1 compared to BF4, and my impression was that BF1 was a much closer range game.

Yep I was thinking the same and was rather surprised. I believe though that the point blank engagements have increased significantly. For me in BF4 a close range engagement was something like the base of the tower on Locker to the tunnel end, where the clusterfuck happens, probably about 20m and add five meter beyond that. This was the standard engagement range for me in BF4. In BF1 I still have them, but a guy vaulting over a wall right beside me or coming up the stairs, through the door in my house etc. is the engagement distance I come upon the most. This has to do with a lack of lanes on open maps and the tight buildings, when you think about Suez. So there is the perceived difference.

And as BU pointed out engagements behave a bit differently than kills. And I believe I took more engagements (and kills) at longer/mnedium ranges because all weapon classes were rather accurate and therefore viable at the relevant ranges, as well as when slightly outranged, the chances of being one-shotted was lower. At the same time, BAs are now deemed useful, the maps allow shots over 100m, so this is becoming a relevant engagement and kill range. But yeah in a gamemode of 64 players fighting for a couple of spots, people get cramped into a tight space, therefore reducing distances.

Makes me wonder if the engagement distance with 32 players is statistically higher. And of course map design plays a huge part in this.

Kill =/= Engagement. You don't have to kill your opponent to affect them and the flow of combat.

The most effective way of influencing the battle is sending the other team back to the spawn screen while you are on flags, and especially wiping whole squads back to the respawn screen because then they are forced to do some major walking/driving. That's basically Battlefield gameplay in a nutshell.

With the amount of zerging that occurs in BF1, scratching someone > 20 m isn't really relevant, he's got 10-20 buddies all around him. It's killing them so that they don't make flag radius that actually matters.

Hmm, I only played the Singleplayer and MW II for an hour in MP. Back then I never found any real difference between the gunplay of BF and CoD, especially BF3. Within the usual engagement distances the differences in the more nuanced shooting mechanics of BF do not really come to play.

As far as moving mechanics go, all these special moves in BF3 and 4, I would definitely call exploits, they were surely not intended and were rarely encountered in average gameplay anyway. It is a bit different in BF1 where I did see more crouch-slides, and the movement in general is somewhat clunkier in some ways and very reactive in others. I think BF4 had it spot on in the end.

Altogether and just judging from looking at CoD gameplay I would not say they feel alike. But things like map design and gamemode play a part as well. Engagement distances are tendencially more focused around the 5-50m range in CoD, while in BF1 the maps are focused more around 0-10 and 50-150m.

Personally I did like the run and gun gameplay of BF3 and 4, where you could play aggressive, push forward flank around fast while also being able to defend a lane and position. I think CoD did work in a similar way when you put the engagement in perspective.

The engagement distance leading to a kill drops off nearly exponentially with range in BF1 and BF4. 50-150 is irrelevant compared to 10-20, 20-30, etc

I was pretty shocked when Labby posted his engagement range analysis, because the data was very similar for BF1 compared to BF4, and my impression was that BF1 was a much closer range game.

Yep I was thinking the same and was rather surprised. I believe though that the point blank engagements have increased significantly. For me in BF4 a close range engagement was something like the base of the tower on Locker to the tunnel end, where the clusterfuck happens, probably about 20m and add five meter beyond that. This was the standard engagement range for me in BF4. In BF1 I still have them, but a guy vaulting over a wall right beside me or coming up the stairs, through the door in my house etc. is the engagement distance I come upon the most. This has to do with a lack of lanes on open maps and the tight buildings, when you think about Suez. So there is the perceived difference.

And as BU pointed out engagements behave a bit differently than kills. And I believe I took more engagements (and kills) at longer/mnedium ranges because all weapon classes were rather accurate and therefore viable at the relevant ranges, as well as when slightly outranged, the chances of being one-shotted was lower. At the same time, BAs are now deemed useful, the maps allow shots over 100m, so this is becoming a relevant engagement and kill range. But yeah in a gamemode of 64 players fighting for a couple of spots, people get cramped into a tight space, therefore reducing distances.

Makes me wonder if the engagement distance with 32 players is statistically higher. And of course map design plays a huge part in this.

The ~10 meter range is more relevant in BF1 than BF4, but not dramatically so, and if you look at the graphs again you see that BF4 somehow had more point blank kills (nearly 0 m). The 20-40 m range in BF4 is more relevant, but again not dramatically so.

I really don't think those differences would amount to something you can really perceive in-game even you played the two titles back-to-back over their full range of maps.

I'm fairly confident that engagement distance is almost entirely dictated by the concentration of players around flags, and the deliberate shortening of lines of sights in/around flags. In maps where you can maneuver (ie the big, open ones) people can close onto flag radius from many angles, with many approaches having intermittent cover and where the density of players covering everything is very small. On maps where you can't, the engagement distances are intrinsically short by design where the teams clash the most heavily (metro, lockers, etc). It's also a self-enforcing behaviour (especially in BF1). If you wind up in a lots of <15 m engagements, you're going to gravitate towards a weapon that works well at that range. In BF1 that has typically meant using a weapon that performs poorly outside of that range, which means you're locking yourself into short range fights and will be deliberately be seeking those out.

My suspicion is that if you shrunk the player counts, the fights get more dynamic (lots more hopping from flag to flag), but that the overall engagement distance stays mostly the same since that is dictated by fighting for control of any given flag radius.

It's also a self-enforcing behaviour (especially in BF1). If you wind up in a lots of <15 m engagements, you're going to gravitate towards a weapon that works well at that range. In BF1 that has typically meant using a weapon that performs poorly outside of that range, which means you're locking yourself into short range fights and will be deliberately be seeking those out.

Which is exactly why, in addition to aim and such requiring more skill once you leave face-stabbing range, my preferred strategy of engaging enemies between 20-50m when possible works so well.